J. S03039/15

2015 PA Super 87

IN RE: APPLICATION OF 

JOHN P. CLADER, TRADING AS 

LT INVESTIGATIONS, 

FOR A PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

:

: No. 2094 EDA 2014

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County

Civil Division at No. CV128-2014

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND OTT, JJ. 

DISSENTING OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 20, 2015

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that it is well settled 

that law enforcement officers, including probation officers and correctional 

officers, cannot simultaneously hold a license as a private detective. This is 

primarily as a matter of public policy and to avoid the appearance of a 

conflict of interest. As this court stated in In re Centeno, 5 A.3d 1248, 

1249 (Pa.Super. 2010), reversing the issuance of a license to a county 

correctional officer:

the weight of authority is in favor of the position 

espoused by the Commonwealth, namely that “as a 

matter of public policy, persons vested with the 

authority of a peace officer, by virtue of their public 

employment, cannot be licensed as private 

detectives, because of the obvious potential for 

abuse and conflict of interest.”
J. S03039/15

- 2 -

See also In re Kuma K-9 Sec., Inc., 506 A.2d 445, 448 (Pa.Super. 1986) 

(“Where public officials are involved, even the appearance of a conflict of 

interest should be avoided.”) (citation omitted).

The majority distinguishes this case on the basis that Clader’s 

authority is limited to school purposes. The majority observes that his police 

powers are limited, in terms of scope and jurisdiction, compared to the 

broad county-wide or state-wide powers of police, probation, and 

correctional officers. In addition, Clader cannot access criminal background 

information.

With great respect to the majority view, I fail to see a meaningful 

distinction between probation officers, correctional officers, and school police 

officers for purposes of private detective licensing. As the Commonwealth 

points out, Clader was granted full municipal police powers, including the 

power to issue summary citations and to detain individuals until local law 

enforcement is notified. He has the same powers as a municipal police 

officer and is required, while on duty, to wear a shield identifying himself as 

a school police officer. 24 P.S. § 7-778(c)(2), (d). In addition, while he 

cannot obtain criminal history information, he does have access to drivers’ 

license, registration, and stolen vehicle information. (Commonwealth’s brief 

at 13.) This information is not obtainable by an individual or private 

detective. (Id.) 
J. S03039/15

- 3 -

The policy interest behind the rule is to avoid the appearance of 

impropriety and the potential for abuse, as opposed to any evidence of 

actual abuse. Centeno, supra, citing In re Application of Millennium 

Consulting & Assoc., 804 A.2d 735, 736 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002). It seems to 

me these concerns are valid whether the applicant is a probation officer, 

correctional officer, constable, or school police officer.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the trial court erred in 

issuing Clader a private detective license. As such, I would not reach the 

second issue, the trial court’s authority to grant a private detective license 

subject to certain limitations.